Monday, October 29, 2012

DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng has called on the government to apologise and provide closure for all Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees in conjunction with the 25th anniversary of Operasi Lalang reports Malaysiakini.

Lim Guan Eng and the DAP are no strangers to apologies, so, they should know.

The cocky, arrogant and tukang chief minister of Penang had to apologise, to HRH the Sultan of Johore, for Lim's behind the scene comments on the Johore state.

Then there is the apology to former Malacca chief minister, Tan Sri Abdul Rahim, for unfortunate events that had caused Tan Sri Abdul Rahim and family, great distress and anguish.

It was an apology related to a sex scandal alleged to have been committed by the former Malacca chief minister.

For whatever reason, the DAP apology link above will get you nowhere. It can be found here.

In fact, another apology is outstanding. Lim Guan Eng should apologise, to all Penangites at the very least because he is not one, for deceiving all and sundry, by claiming credit that his Penang state administration had managed to reduce state debt from RM630 million at 8 March 2008 to only RM30 million as at end of October 2011 which represents a debt reduction of 95% or RM600 million, which is the highest debt reduction of any state in Malaysia’s history! And emphasised with unashamed gusto.

Deputy Finance Minister, Datuk Donald Lim, came out to say it was wrong for Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng to mislead the public into thinking that the state had settled the loan on its own. The deputy minister explained that the state debt was actually transferred to the Federal Government following a water restructuring agreement that was initiated even before Pakatan Rakyat came to power in Penang.

Donald Lim added the CAT Penang CM should be ashamed for telling half-truths for cheap political mileage.

Coming back to the apology for the 1987, Operation Lalang, you will find on it's anniversary day, many versions and motives for the government's action.

I submit three versions relevant to this post.

One is by another DAP idiot Penang member of parliament, Liew Chin Tong, in the Malaysian Insider.

Liew Chin Tong, for all that he could muster in his opinion of Operation Lalang, conveniently omits, among others, one significant fact which blogger Uppercaise does not.

For example, the idiot DAP MP mentions Lim Guan Eng, Mat Sabu and many others were young activists at a time when opposition parties and movements were against Barisan Nasional for very different reasons, and often contradictory causes.

I was privy and bored to death with Liew Chin Tong's non-sensical blabberings at a SUARAM Scorpene non-event forum in Penang, so, stating his failure suffices.

The significant omission later.

Uppercaise mentions present PM, Najib Razak was reputed to have drawn a keris and threatened to bathe it in blood, and there were other blood-curling statements made, including cries of “another May 13″.

Uppercaise was careful and correct to use the word "reputed" for PM Datuk Seri Najib's wholly undeserved "bathing keris" reputation and I want to address that matter and clear all doubts once and for all.

RPK portal Malaysia Today carried an extensive NST article aptly titled "Karpal's poser an urban legend" with the author saying there's one nagging problem with that urban legend of "bathing keris" attributed to Datuk Seri Najib. It is not not true because the author was there covering the rally for the New Straits Times at the time in question. Quote,

"Out of the blue, Najib was confronted with that accusation on Monday in the Dewan Rakyat, thrown on the table by Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) during Question Time.

While Karpal did not reprise the inflammatory words that Najib was accused of uttering at a time when political tension was running amok and Operasi Lalang was just days away, the feisty lawyer did toggle this loaded probability: "You had waved a kris in challenge to the Chinese community. If it was true, are you prepared to ask for forgiveness from the Chinese community?"

"If it was true" being the operative words, outlandish as they are, then even the astute Karpal does not know for a fact if the kris-uttering incident actually occurred. But it doesn't hurt the opposition's standing to tango with this kris mythology to score brownie points that may embarrass the prime minister.

Najib, however, wasn't about to bite the bait in Karpal's unconvincing fishing expedition. "The incident did not take place," Najib retorted, calmly in his trademark baritone.

"I have never said that. The one who should apologise is the YB concerned, not me."

Also Uppercaise opines that events proceeding Operation Lalang led to judiciary’s loss of independence.

Of course, all those who share the same opinion with blogger Uppercaise look to the removal of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President as the beginning point of the "loss of judiciary indepence."

What prompted the author to write the letter is because the topic of Tun Salleh Abas had cropped up in the papers at the time with the Senator-de facto Minister for Law holding the view that Government should apologise to Tun Salleh for his being sacked as Lord President. Quote,

"It must be remembered that to this day no one knows what the defence would have been if Salleh had appeared before the tribunal and be subjected to cross-examination. Salleh did not do this as he said he ‘did not recognise’ the tribunal in his interviews. Even if one does not recognise a tribunal, one should appear before it and make the necessary submission and if the submission fails, one should still give evidence (under protest so to speak) setting out the defence.

His version, even if disbelieved by the tribunal, will always be there on the record for everyone to see. In fact the tribunal had stated categorically that if it had the benefit of a plausible explanation from Salleh in regard to the several issues which were presented to it for its consideration its decision may well have been different.

By his refusing to appear and give his version (especially in regard to his advocating the acceptance of the Islamic legal system in the interpretation of the laws as propounded by the ‘muftis’) he in fact had shot himself in the foot. It is no use crying foul when he did not exercise his right to be heard. What would he have done in a similar or other cases presided by him?

Now, for that convenient and significant omission.

Uppercaise wrote, "In the midst of all that, Chinese educationists had been unhappy with the posting of non-Mandarin-speaking heads of Chinese schools by the Education Ministry (then headed by Anwar Ibrahim)".

Yes folks, the main cause of events leading to Operation Lalang can be solely placed on Anwar Ibrahim, who as Education Minister, Aliran says in "Operation Lalang Revisited"

The sensitive issues were brought on by what appeared innocuously enough as Education Ministry appointments of some 100 senior assistants and principals to vernacular Chinese schools.

Amidst calls from both sides for the resignations of MCA Deputy President and Labour Minister Lee Kim Sai and UMNO Education Minister Anwar Ibrahim, UMNO announced the holding of a mammoth rally in KL to celebrate its 41st Anniversary, which it was claimed would see the attendance of half a million members.

The proposed UMNO rally was the ostensible reason for the Inspector General of Police to precipitate the 27 October crackdown.

Aliran's "innocuous" appointments of some 100 senior assistants and principals to vernacular Chinese schools which according to Uppercaise were "non-Mandarin-speaking", making Chinese educationists unhappy.

Uppercaise further stated Barisan Nasional’s Chinese-based parties added their voices to the ruckus raised by Dong Xiao Zong and the DAP, calling for Education Minister Anwar Ibrahim to resign as stated by Aliran.

Your friend and not mine, Anwar Ibrahim, is also connected to the incident.

As it turned out, in this Asiaone report, Tan Sri Rahim was asked to step down because "He (Anwar) told me that (then prime minister) Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad wanted me to leave." after being implicated in an alleged scandal.

And when Tan Sri Rahim “ wrote and submitted my resignation letter, I asked Dr Mahathir if he had instructed Anwar to ask me to resign and he said there was no such instruction”.

It was an Asiaone report of Tan Sri Rahim asking Anwar to resign from politics for sextra-curricular activities caught on tape, confirmed 99.99% as the prime minister designate, severe back ache and all.

So, if there is any apology to be demanded, DAP Penang chief minister Lim Guan Eng should direct that demand to his prime minister in waiting, Anwar Ibrahim.

Expect, of course, for Anwar to give his oft-repeated snake oil salesman pitchy excuse, it was Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who made him do the things he did.

It is of an issue that is close to everyones heart, the standards of, or rather the deteriorating, quality of telco services. I say it's about time and better late than never.

The Star reportedly has the telecommunication regulator, MCMC, will come down hard on telcos who have not heeded calls for improved services by way of heavy penalties.

A definite statement, it reported telcos failed to keep promises with rampant dropped calls is a clear indication telcos may be more concerned with getting customers on their network instead of expanding their network on a timely basis to cater to the additional growth.

How true.

While the report appears mainly to address voice telecommunication issues, problems faced by consumers relating to data communication (or internet), especially mobile use were not mentioned.

The MCMC must also look into greater transparency by telcos in determining conditions of service. For example quota, in pre-paid broadband services, how data usage can be easily monitored by the user and ensure the data usage is indeed accurate.

In voice communication how many of you have experienced being charged for a call when a connection was not made?

It worth mentioning again telcos concerned with getting customers on their network instead of expanding their network have contributed to the snail's pace internet download/upload speeds experienced by the majority, I dare say, of mobile broadband users.

Like a Ponzi scheme, new mobile broadband users will enjoy smooth and consistent internet speeds for about 3-6 months (my experience with two telcos) while older users are deprived because the network bandwith is not expanded. And these new users will become older users themselves when new users are added.

The Malaysian Insider quoted Dzulkarnain Taib, president of the Young Journalists Club, "We view the claim that SUARAM has been accepted or recognised as ‘civil party’ as a biggest lie in the country’s political history" and reported,

He declined to show the two court documents to reporters, saying that it will be revealed at an “opportune time”.

He gave the court reference number for the documents instead, with the first being “No du Parquet:1115196025 and No Instruction: 2292/12/4” and the second being “No Parquet: 1115106025 and No Instruction: 20F/11/52”.

This is what SUARAM had to say in it's statement -

7. A judicial inquiry had commenced on 16 March 2012, and SUARAM was made a civil party to the case.

I believe judicial questions were requested by the French prosecutors in a document dated 29 February 2012.

Which was duly replied by the investigating judges, Roger Le Loire and Serge Tournaire on 13 March 2012 by document Instruction No: 2292/12/4,

No surprises, in running dog style in a later Malaysiakini report, Susan Loone, Altantuya/PM Najib link perpetuator extraordinaire journalist, makes no bones to twist a non-event by emphasising Tan Sri Musa, "was supposed to reveal new details about the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder" and other embelishments to satisfy her bloodthirsty crave.

How is anyone "supposed to reveal" anything that has been denied in the first place, making the purported press meeting fallacious, if one were to accept Susan Loone and Malaysiakini's spin?

11am, Monday October 22, 2012
"CANCELLED: New revelations in the Altantuya murder case
Press conference by Musa Hassan, former national police chief of Malaysia."

Going to that link it carries a disclaimer,

"This is not an FCCT-sponsored event. Responsibility for program content is solely that of the event organizer."

Does it make sense for FCCT to state they are not sponsors when the event is cancelled or non-existent? Would not the disclaimer in the earlier announcement apply?

And where is the initial announcement at the FCCT website, also reported by Malaysiakini, of a press conference announcement posted last Saturday, to reveal new details about the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder?

The misleading manner at summary of events in October, as published by FCCT above, shows this "club" to be mischievous, irresponsible and devoid of jounalistic principles and the spin by Susan Loone is similarly despicable.

F***ing scum, all of them!

Update 27 October : Screenshot published and words blocked so as to NOT be a perpetuator in a deliberate ruse. Read commentaries with commenter IT.Sheiss

And by chance also yesterday, The Star had an article by Karim Raslan, "Turkey rising!"

Turkey is blue blazes to me but to each his own I always say.

However, if the author wanted to write about Turkey in such exalting fashion, the least he could do is to be a wee bit more objective for his justifications and praise.

Karim Raslan wrote,

September 2012 saw some 300 military officers convicted of attempting to overthrow the government via the “Sledgehammer” plot – an unprecedented development when you consider how the armed forces used to dictate terms to civilian governments.

This has further strengthened Erdogan’s hand in remaking Turkey as well as projecting its power abroad

I don't know what "power" Karim immediately contradicts himself about but the Turkish "Sledgehammer" affair is a moot subject, significant in more ways than one.

It would not be so difficult for Karim, after all, as The Star which carries his piece, had put up two reports from Reuters about the "Sledgehammer" trials, one "Turkey clips military's wings in landmark verdict" which "critics of the government have said the trial was a purge of the government's opponents in the army's ranks"

It also reported, Pinar Dogan, a lecturer at Harvard University and daughter of Cetin Dogan, convicted by the Turkish courts as one of the masterminds of the attempted coup, as saying it was not a legal case and that it was a wider operation with powerful forces behind it, those with firm secularist beliefs were ones targeted. Also she said her mother Nilgul Dogan, 60, faces three years in prison in a separate case for planting a rose bush near the courthouse to protest against the trial.

The other carried by the Star, also a Reuter report, "Turkish court sentences 322 military officers to jail", had thousands of people, including journalists, lawyers and politicians, in jail pending verdicts in trials that human rights groups say raise questions about Turkey's commitment to democratic rights.

Karim could take a leaf out of The Guardian for a lesson of an objective point of view in "Turkey's Sledgehammer Coup verdict: justice or Soviet-style show trial?" that noted it seem no coincidence that many of the soldiers, politicians, Kurdish activists, lawyers, academics and journalists caught up in the Sledgehammer and other mass investigations are also Erdogan's opponents and critics.

The Guardian, in the same report quotes Harvard professor and son-in-law of General Cetin Dogan, Dani Rodrik, saying Turkey holds more journalists in jail than China and Iran combined.

Why I do not give a single sen worth for Turkey, I admit, is the irritating and continous manner your friend not mine, Anwar Ibrahim, showers accolades on Turkey as comparisons only to denigrate Malaysia.

You can never find another Malaysian political personality who insults his own country as frequently and unashamedly as Anwar Ibrahim, as if his own country is an enemy state.

Then again Anwar Ibrahim has a special affinity for Turkish delights.

Who can forget that fleeting moment in time when Anwar crashed the Turkish embassy to save his own skin from phantom assassins in Sodomy act part II.

Two weeks ago, Anwar had again taken Turkey as an example, also touching on the economy, a precursor to Karim's perhaps, in support of his argument when debating the Malaysian budget, with praise not unlike Karim Raslan.

Therefore, it is not by chance that I have singled out Karim Raslan's Turkish bouquet lacking in objectivity. A subtle attempt to paint a positive scenario and conceal a dysfunctional political situation in Turkey.

Bird's of a feather flock together as the saying goes. None more aptly applied for Karim Raslan and Anwar Ibrahim.

Karim's tweet to the other bird @anwaribrahim to READ (has a broken link). When it's a Malaysia Chronicle article, you immediately know where Karim is coming from. When it's a Malaysia Chronicle report, you know where it's headed to, with the usual PKR SOP threats and claims to "thousands" of documents but nothing to show.

Anytime and anything that Anwar, his PKR vultures and other birds of a feather like Karim Raslan say, do yourself a favour and check it out.

I do not really know or care who or what Karim Raslan is. As far as all these types of journalists, analysts, academicians etc etc are concerned, to all readers of the mainstream and alternative media, I borrow in closing, those timely and endearing words of the FMT author -

"Nothing is what it seems and that the search for the truth often requires scratching under the surface, reading all sides and finally coming down with an objective conclusion."

Sunday, October 14, 2012

I have not received any response from your good self to my e-mail of 11 October 2012. Be that as it may. I had inadvertently missed out on asking this important question:

Query: SUARAM claims to have initiated the civil complaint ("Following the commencement of the civil case between SUARAM and DCNS, the French authorities have initiated criminal investigations against several top ranking DCNS officials" - SUARAM press statement http://www.suaram.net/?p=3547), that has led into the judicial inquiry of DCN (now DCNS) sale of submarines to Malaysia. As SUARAM is an unregistered entity in Malaysia (http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/09/18/six-govt-bodies-to-act-against-suaram/), how could SUARAM be a complainant?

Friday, October 12, 2012

The other blogger is one I consider the Master, Another Brick In The Wall. While the focus of ABITW's latest article is Tony Pua, "Is Kit Siang senile too, Tony Pua?", nothing would be complete without Anwar Ibrahim being worthy mention.

I did not comment on that post but if I did I would have said, "Sifu, please don't waste your time on the failed businessman"

The FMT report was centred on a forum, "Bank Negara Forex Scandal – When Government Becomes Speculator" in Penang attended by happy personalities in the above pic.

In it, a retired Bank Negara deputy manager, Dr Rosli Yaakop, is reported to have made this statements, which I excerpt -

"He said Bank Negara strategy was to hit a currency for a couple of yards and once the initial transaction has gone through, re-hit it again with another couple of yards normally only minutes later."

"This will send shocks to the market and dealers will scramble to buy the currency, sending the currency value up."

"But then, dealers caught on to the scheme hit back," said Rosli.

"In 1992, he said Bank Negara gambled on the British Pound. It bought the Pound long and George Soros, major player in forex market, short."

"When the Pound was devalued, Bank Negara lost USD5.5 billion and George Soros gained USD1.7 billion."

"Rosli said experts estimated Bank Negara’s exposure for having lost that much was USD27 to USD33 billion, which was five times more than its foreign reserves and its entire assets of USD20.7 billion in 1992."

"Rosli said that reasonable profits made before 1992 – 93 was the impetus incentive for Bank Negara to gamble in forex in a major way."

Okay, enough of copy pasting already.

Now, this is an article taken from Asian Finance Bank 2009 archives, which is actually taken from Malaysia Today written by someone named Hakim Joe, posted in August 2009.

In it are relevant excerpts as well -

That BNM made reasonable profits during the years before 1992/3 could have been the incentive for them to “go into the forex market in a major way.”

One of BNM’s strategies was to hit a currency for a couple of yards and re-hit it again with another few yards a couple of minutes later (once the initial transaction has gone through). This is done to shock the forex market into action and to “strengthen” the targeted currency as the massive demand for it would hypothetically send other dealers scrambling for it. Additional demand would then send the currency up and BNM could then retire with a healthy profit without having to sit on that position for the next few months. Great tactics if one has the liquidity and if no one caught on to the scheme.

Soros sold the British Pound short. BNM bought in long. Then came the European currency crisis and the sterling bombed. Soros made US$1.7 billion. BNM lost US$5.5 billion.

If one were to lose US$5.5 billion, the exposure would have been typically five to six times that amount, meaning between US$27 billion and US$33 billion. That is three times Malaysia’s GDP or more than five times Malaysia’s foreign reserves (at that time in 1992). Even the entire BNM assets were only valued at US$20.7 billion in 1992.

I do not know why Asian Finance Bank had that aricle but that is not of any concern for the moment.

The point is unless, Dr Rosli Yaakop is Hakim Joe (or the FMT copies extracts from Malaysia Today incorporating words to attribute it to Dr Rosli Yaakop, which cannot possibly be so), here is the worst and incontrovertible proof of plagiarism by anyone.

Also, unless Dr Rosli Yaakop is Hakim Joe, I guess all those at the forum including those happy personalities have been taken for a mighty good joy ride.

No wonder they look so happy, especially your good friend and mine, Anwar Ibrahim, thanking Lim Guan Eng for a job well done.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

It has been reported that you would be willing to brief members of parliament in Malaysia at the invitation of Mr Anwar Ibrahim, the Malaysian opposition leader in parliament.

That said and should your visit materialise, I would be most grateful if you could respond to my queries, whether to this mail or at the venue of the intended brief, that is, to the Scorpene investigations ongoing in France.

I have no doubts as to your sincerity and integrity as a lawyer. However, the same cannot be said of your client, SUARAM. Consider the following excerpts from various official statements of your client, SUARAM, appended chronologically for intent and purpose.

"During these past weeks, we have been in touch with our lawyers, William Bourdon and Joseph Breham regularly, and with every passing week, they tell us that the decision by the courts is very close, and the waiting time will end very soon."

"While quite frankly not expecting the complaint to make its way up in a foreign judicial system, we waited with baited breath for 2 anxious years, and witnessed with disbelief, how the Prosecutors office began to unravel further details of new commissions paid out, travel invoices and other payments made in the course of the procurement process. The murder of Altantuya Shaaribu, although not directly tied to the complaint filed, is intricately linked with the alleged payments and kickbacks made."

"Our lawyers have also informed us that a SUARAM delegation will need to be present before the judge, as key witnesses, to start off proceedings of the case."

"On Thursday 29th March (my emphasis), Suaram’ lawyers in France, informed the NGO that they had obtained access to court papers related to the case involving the RM77.3 billion purchase of two scorpene submarines."

(Note: This statement is the only one from SUARAM from an internet news item as posted at their website)

"As was reported, the SUARAM delegation comprising Kua Kia Soong, Cynthia Gabriel and Fadiah Nadwa, returned after a successful trip to Paris, and a hearing before judge Roger Le Loire, one of the two Instruction Judges assigned to oversee the French inquiry into the controversial purchase of the 2 submarines by the Malaysian government in 2002.

SUARAM has gained full access to investigation papers from the Public Prosecutor’s office. This is a huge step forward, as many of the details kept confidential are now made accessible to SUARAM as the Plaintiff in the civil case against the DCNS.

French law provides several constraints on the area of access. While we are not able to obtain a hard copy and distribute copies around, we are however entitled to full view of the documents and are able to quote them to the media and to the public."

Query 1: In all honesty, do you consider this statement in (A. above) "they tell us that the decision by the courts is very close" to be an accurate statement by your client?

Query 2: SUARAM specifically states (B above) they "witnessed" "how the Prosecutors office began to unravel further details of new commissions paid out, travel invoices and other payments made in the course of the procurement process", meaning your clients had sighted documents. As the "case" had not started proceedings, is the statement by your client an accurate statement of fact or how can this be so?

Query 3: Although (C. above) is an internet news item carried at your client's website, how could your client be privy to information of "new commissions paid out, travel invoices and other payments made" on 18 March when your good self only "obtained access to court papers related to the case" on 29 March?

Query 4: (I presume) As a result of SUARAM needing (B above) "to be present before the judge" "to start off proceedings of the case", (D above) "a hearing before judge Roger Le Loire, one of the two Instruction Judges assigned to oversee the French inquiry" was carried out. That your client are "not able to obtain a hard copy", is this another accurate statement of fact?

Query 5: Although (D above) your client is "entitled to full view of the documents" are they allowed by French laws to "quote them to the media and to the public"?

Query 6: Even though your client seem to contradict themselves and publish details of documents, again, is this allowed French laws?

Query 7: Lately, remarks of French District Prosecutor, Mr Yves Charpenel, your client published your response thus which does not establish nor rebut anything, (http://www.suaram.net/?p=3839) are you truly aware of your client's schemes and actions over here in Malaysia, away from France?

Mr Bourdon, whether your volunteer to brief Malaysian parliamentarians is ocassioned or not, I do not see what useful inputs could possibly be raised other than what is already known of the ongoing investigation in France.

Therefore and finally,

Query 8: By your intended brief, what purpose would it serve if inputs are restricted and/or a careless disclosure could result in a penalty of nullity with the investigation and all your endeavours resulting in nought?

Thank you for your kind attention and anticipated response.

Yours faithfully,
Freddie Kevin

PS

My reference is made to your country's Code of Criminal Procedure:

Articles 11, 56, 57, 59, 98, 114, and 520

Bogger note:

The letter was sent via e-mail to Mr Bourdon at bourdonvoituriez@wanadoo.fr
and Query no 4. has importance significance.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

When I first read the report in Malaysiakini by Susan Loone "Speak out against injustices, Christians urged" which she attributes to that fellow not from Penang but is Penang Chief Minister, Lim Guan Eng, my first reaction was to start clicking the keyboard.

Addressing about 300 church leaders yesterday, Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng said that Christians must not remain quiet even if they think they are "innocent, pure and not involved in wrongful acts".

Lim Guan Eng must be losing his marbles if he thinks all Christians would consciously or conscientiously consider themselves wholly innocent and pure.

And not involved in what manner of wrongful acts? Adultery, pre-marital sex, using contraceptives?

Sodomy?

Be that as it may, should these Christians do vote DAP for DAP justice, these Christians who think they are innocent, pure and are not involved in wrongful acts are sure as hell - hypocrites.

But since it was a report and coming from Malaysiakini you would expect that it would be careful to make it seem innocuous when, in reality, true intentions of the Penang chief minister is obvious, I left it at that.

That it has now reached a stage of denials by other church leaders for subsequent reports by Utusan and Mingguan Malaysia, the blame must solely be placed upon Malaysiakini for obscuring the true intention of the Penang chief minister, Lim Guan Eng, which is - to corner the Christian votes.

All that will be said out of respect to the Christian leaders and therefore putting it mildly, giving their side (to refute?) of the Mingguan and Utusan reports, shows them to be as knaive as they come.

But definitely not enough to discredit those Mingguan and Utusan reports, by the detail of these Christian leaders' statements, no matter what their explanations are.

Evangelical Church Bishop Solomon Rajah is quoted by The Malaysia Insider,

“I merely gave a general view on the subject. I said the church should not be dragged into politics"

Lim Guan Eng stands condemned.

I cannot say whether it is the same with other Christian denominations, as a Catholic church goer, homilies in the past have been littered by disguised and undisguised partisan encouragement for opposition support.

I welcome Christian leaders, pastors and priests to deny this.

There has been little or none at my church of late.

This is what Lim Guan Eng means by not remaining silent and speaking out. He is calling for vocal opposition support from pulpits of the church to resume or increased, whichever the case may be.

To answer whichever pastor and everyone else who by design, ignorance or stupidity is willing to defend the shifty Penang CAT chief minister, whether there was nothing political, note the initial Malaysiakini Christian urging report,

Lim, the DAP secretary-general, said although believers are answerable to God, it is important to speak out on "Justice for All" - a slogan which had been Pakatan Rakyat's clarion call.

"This division is created by BN to garner votes. Umno would frighten the Muslims about a Christian state and MCA would scare the non-Muslims about an Islamic state," Lim (left) said.

Now, if that is not politics, they must be blind as bats in the belfry or knaive as they come.

Friday, October 5, 2012

It with great pleasure that I present to good readers the above video starring 2 close associates, former officers of SUARAM and PKR MPs, Tian Chua and Sivarasa.

The subject of the video, in a press conference by command of their master, Anwar Ibrahim, is the announcement of the PKR de facto leader's invitation to lawyers involved in the Scorpene investigations for a briefing to be held in parliament no less.

It clearly shows an act of desperation on the part of the Pakatan Rakyat designated "prime minister" which only confirms that he and SUARAM are absolutely clueless as to what the actual circumstances of the on-going investigations are, that it requires a briefing from the lawyers concerned.

And much more.

It would be very interesting what the French lawyers can or will say as French laws dictate that "Except where the law provides otherwise and subject to the defendant's rights, the enquiry and investigation proceedings are secret." and "Any person contributing to such proceedings is subjected to professional secrecy under the conditions and subject to the penalties set out by articles 226-13 and 226-14 of the Criminal Code".

Especially, what SUARAM's lawyers have to say about the flagrant manner by which the allegations are freely and unsparingly being publicised by SUARAM and others in concert that infringe a fundamental decree that "Every person suspected or prosecuted is presumed innocent as long as his guilt has not been established. Attacks on his presumption of innocence are proscribed, compensated and punished in the circumstances laid down by statute."

SUARAM has denied political motives or connection in their unholy quest. In a report carried by The Mole this is what Cynthia Gabriel reportedly said, "Nobody has asked us to pursue this issue but we do it on our own accord. It has nothing to do with any influence from political parties."

BERSIH had immediately disassociated itself, “We have nothing to do with that. It is entirely organised by a political party,” said Bersih 2.0 co-chairman S Ambiga when the Pakatan Rakyat announced it's plan for a free and fair election rally.

That SUARAM has not officialy made a similar declaration to disassociate and distance themselves from an obvious politically motivated act of a desperate man and political leader of their comrades, Tian Chua and Sivarasa, is sufficient proof of SUARAM's lies, deceit and political complicity.

I would like to bring to readers attention what that person, with the gift of unsubstantiated gab, Cynthia Gabriel, proudly said when Malaysiakini reported "Suaram: Subpoena finally served on Scorpene witness" - "The inquiry is progressing and we've been allowed to tell you that the first subpoena has reached the first witness. But I can't tell you who the witness is or when the subpoena was given for now, we have to follow the court proceedings and can only quote the court notes."

Malaysiakini also noted in the same report, Cynthia confirmed that the subpoena was served on one of the seven witnesses which it had proposed to the French courts probing the Scorpene deal and that the other six proposed witnesses were Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak (right), Defence Minister Zahid Hamidi, private investigator P Balasubramaniam, Najib's confidante Abdul Razak Baginda and the latter's spouse and father - Mazlinda Makhzan and Abdul Malim Baginda.

For reader's information this is as stated in the French Code Of Criminal Procedure Section IV: THE HEARING OF WITNESSES, Article 105 - Persons against whom there is serious and corroborative evidence that they took part in the offences referred to the investigating judge may not be heard as witnesses.

What it undoubtedly means is that who so ever is called to be a witness, has NO serious and corroborative evidence that they took part in the offences referred to the investigations.

IMPORTANT NOTE:

The Scorpene allegation is in an inquiry stage where judges oversee investigations and is not an actual trial. See SUARAM's announcement and a decidedly political exhortation "a defining turn of events in our already heightened political landscape, and one that will surely give shape in the battle for change"

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Pakatan Rakyat's response to provide a shadow cabinet, as requested or even demanded by many, is no better than a muted one.

The only conclusion that can be arrived by Pakatan Rakyat's failure to provide a shadow cabinet is political expediency of the most perilous if not deceitful kind.

The second most important post in a shadow cabinet would be the deputy prime minister.

Apart from erstwhile disgraced deputy prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim, as choice for prime minister, there is no one within the Pakatan Rakyat acceptable to the opposition coalition, to succeed Anwar Ibrahim to be prime prime minister.

By virtue of the above, since there is no way another PKR member will fill the post of deputy prime minister, the post must obviously be filled by PAS.

Also, Pakatan Rakyat is skirting the issue of a shadow cabinet because they do not have an explicit succession plan for the prime minister post.

As sure as the sun rises tomorrow, just by naming the deputy prime minister's post, a substancial bulk of non-malay support, especially the Chinese, will abandon the DAP, hudud or no hudud. The same will hold true for the PKR.

Even if the Pakatan Rakyat, for whatever reason, does not provide a shadow cabinet, in the context of Malaysian politics, the reality is Malaysia will have a PAS prime minister in due course, if Pakatan Pakatan Rakyat takes over the federal government.

While the majority Malaysians have accepted the practice of deputy prime ministers assuming the prime ministers post, and because UMNO is the Malay dominant ruling party all prime ministers have been from UMNO, the majority of Malaysians especially those in East Malaysia, are unwilling to accept a PAS prime minister without the need to elaborate why.

But that is why Pakatan Rakyat are only willing to declare Anwar Ibrahim is their designated prime minister and nothing more.

They will not and cannot say Hadi or Nik Aziz is the designated prime minister or deputy prime minister.

Another reason the Pakatan Rakyat declines or refuses to disclose a shadow cabinet can be traced to the 2011 Sarawak state elections when the issue of shadow cabinet became a contentious issue for the opposition pact.

What is also significant in the report, as far as the DAP is concerned is it's disposition to influence upon attaining a position of power.

Having won the lion's share of seats in the elections, the Sarawak shadow cabinet was predominantly DAP with 13 portfolios in the shadow cabinet, PKR holding two and PAS one. (See below a convoluted rationale by DAP in this matter)

Anwar Ibrahim, as de-facto PKR leader, was central in the furor the DAP shadow cabinet had raised.

The DAP-PKR tussle over posts in the Sarawak shadow Cabinet escalated into a full-fledged war today, with state DAP chief Wong Ho Leng accusing “someone in PKR’s political bureau” of being power-hungry

The recently re-elected Bukit Assek assemblyman issued a hard-hitting statement this afternoon, condemning PKR for refusing to grant autonomyto its state chapter when handling party affairs in Sarawak.

And yet Pakatan Rakyat can unashamedly declare in it's Kuching Declaration on Malaysia day of all days, it's first pledge, "To restore autonomy within Sarawak and Sabah and making the two states equal partners".

The other PKR figure embroiled in the Sarawak shadow cabinet fiasco was Baru Bian.

These two statements by Baru Bian and the other attributed to DAP's Wong Ho Leng must capture attention.

Baru Bian,

"At the outset let me say that this idea of forming a Shadow Cabinet had been supported by PKR from the beginning. This is because it would lead to a more open and responsible Government as both parties on the political divide would be encouraged to discharge their respective duties as the Peoples’ Representatives with a sense of purpose, commitment and pride."

A shadow cabinet is okay with Anwar Ibrahim then but unnecessary now even though he is "prime minister elect" then and now.

Wong Ho Leng with the convoluted rationale,

"The line-up is not a reflection of the portfolios the elected wakil rakyat will hold should Pakatan Rakyat form the state Government one day. The fact that there are more DAP members in the shadow cabinet is merely because DAP has 12 elected representatives compared to PKR’s 3, and all elected representatives are appointed in the shadow cabinet."

But probably as an afterthought and telling,

"A leader from PAS has to be appointed because there was no one from either DAP or PKR to take the Islamic Affairs portfolio."

And you would believe the DAP in the Kuching Declaration, second pledge, "To increase national integration between Sarawak, Sabah and Peninsular Malaysia through a fair power-sharing agreement" and all the other pledges?

While Pakatan Rakyat have no need for a shadow cabinet, they have a need for a shadow budget.

Even if the figures are 110 per cent accurate don't trust the Pakatan Rakyat to implement the shadow budget.

When their actual actions belies what they pretentiously declare, do not expect the Pakatan Rakyat shadow budget be reliable.

Pakatan Rakayat are adept at playing around with facts that don't figure and figures that are not facts.

It is excusable if the rabid and ardent Pakatan supporters are blind to the glaringly deceitful ways of their leaders, it is a shame and unpardonable that others are willing to gamble our future on a skewed coalition and their false promises.

It is in the alternative media that all the accusations and allegations have emanated from, with on-line source material to validate these precepts, against Malaysiakini.

I wrote about Malaysiakini's Soros taboo and asked why is that so.

If Premesh (and Steven Gan) are truly and genuinely informed responsible jounalists, they would at the very least considered but most certainly been aware of numerous material available, in the alternative media, exposing the destructive means and methods in the person of George Soros to achieve his objectives.

And Malaysiakini IS an alternative medium. One which relies on subscription fees to remain financially independent, according to Premesh.

So they know that any link to George Soros would be detrimental to their credibility, impartiality and aspersions would be cast.

I have said that there are no DIRECT links between Media Development Loan Fund, a substantial shareholder of mkini dotcom sdn bhd, and George Soros.

That said, make a serious search of MDLF founders Sasa Vucinic and Stuart Auerbach and their Open Society Institute, OSI, George Soros connections.

Premesh cannot hide his admiration for George Soros and I had included two links to take the shine off his accolades. Here is Premesh again "When the pound collapsed in 1992, Malaysia was left with a major hole in the Treasury, and Soros made a name for himself for breaking the Bank of England."

The title is also self explanatory, "You Lose, Soros Wins" by Richard W. Rahn senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth. What it says, asks and answers -

Mr. Soros, the Democrats' financial angel, is often referred to as the "man who broke the bank of England" in the 1992 Sterling crisis. During that episode, he made $1 billion in one day at the expense of British taxpayers. The relevant question is, did Mr. Soros bet a couple of billion dollars on mere guesses of what the German, French and British officials would do, or did he have inside information?

Mr. Soros has a reputation for trading on confidential information obtained from political sources. For instance, he was convicted by a French court of having insider knowledge about a takeover attempt of a major French bank. His conviction was upheld in 2006, and he had to pay a multimillion-dollar fine

I repeat, MDLF has no direct links to George Soros but that does not mean we cannot question MDLF itself.

MDLF board representation is explained by Premesh thus, "To date, MDLF is involved in 269 projects for 85 independent media companies in 27 countries. Not only does MDLF have a right to be on Malaysiakini’s board given its stake in the company, it is hardly business sense for us to pass on the opportunity to have such distinguished individuals to serve on our board."

Premesh also bemoans the fact, "Up to this date, unfortunately, they and other shareholders have not received any dividends but we hope their investments have been worthwhile."

Which I missed highlighting in my earlier post.

It has been 10 years since MDLF has had any return to it's investment in 2002 and yet has the "advice and guidance from MDLF and their current CEO, Harlan Mandel, have been a tremendous boost to Malaysiakini’s business strategy" sitting on the mkini dotcom sdn bhd board.

In 2011, MDLF clients made a total of $98.8 million in sales. From 2010 to 2011, individual client sales grew by an average of 6.2%. After 1 year of working with MDLF, client sales increased by an average of 61%, and after 5 years by 377%.

For 30 media companies that have worked with MDLF for five years or more, there was an average cumulative growth in sales of 376.7% after five years. Even when removing two high-growth outliers from the data*, MDLF clients still experienced growth of 133.9%.

But mkini dotcom sdn bhd returns does not support such data when it was reported for the year ended Dec 31, 2011, Mkini recorded a drop in revenue from RM1.85mil in 2010 to RM1.63mil last year and has not declared any dividends for the past 10 years in it's association with MDLF.

Which therefore begets a pertinent question - What has MDLF doing in mkini dotcom sdn bhd the past 10 years and their role, now, with their CEO on board as director?

Only MDLF and not mkini dotcom sdn bhd can answer that.

I have my answers.

I hope readers would seek further to find their own answers.

Finally, I also wrote - "His (Premesh Chandran) dissection can easily dupe gullible Pakatan Rakyat supporters and his paying followers but unlike Anwar Ibrahim, who is only good at scripted events, Premesh'es prepared script is confounding, for want of an appropriate word".

The proof of the pie is in the eating.

Premesh proudly proclaimed -

"Over 13 years, hundreds have worked on our editorial floor. If asked, I believe they will tell a tale of hard work and long hours, but never a tale of stories being spiked, censored or twisted to suite external powers, something so prevalent in the newsrooms of politically-owned media

Stupid is as stupid does Premesh Chandran freely admits by a derogatory description of his "editorial floor" to justify a positive connotation.

Can anyone trust a Malaysiakini "editorial floor", which Premesh by his own admission believes, is prone to tales? Tales - as in deliberate lies and other negative definitions?

MyKad

Love my country with its pimples, warts and all - a paradise on earth. Born in Kuala Lumpur, Selangor. Blog, Title and Description was created a flip-flop moment in time and what others following will aspire the country to be, that which was achieved by the Special One.

DISCLAIMER

All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog does not share the view of any comments unless otherwise stated. The owner is not responsible and makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any comments published or information found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. Reader discretion is always advised.